Samantha Stark Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 Just now, Lord Varys said: Well, Stannis should have a better claim than Renly. Due to him being the elder and all. But do Robert's brothers truly have to be his heirs? What about Viserys and Daenerys? If Robert was a usurper and left no heirs of his own body can then his brothers actually claim his throne for themselves? This is all very tricky. Renly bases his claim in part on the fact that he is Robert's younger brother but also on Robert's own boasting that he claimed his crown with mere strength. Renly has a blood claim as well as a lot of swords so he can try to bend the rules to suit his needs. I severely doubt anyone outside of Dorne would be in favor of a Targaryen restoration right after Robert kicked the bucket. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Varys Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 1 minute ago, Samantha Stark said: I severely doubt anyone outside of Dorne would be in favor of a Targaryen restoration right after Robert kicked the bucket. There still are Targaryen loyalists around, though. They just sit still because no Targaryen made a move after Robert's death. And with there being no proof for Stannis' claim that Cersei's children aren't Robert it becomes pretty clear that only a few people care about the right of primogeniture (Robb, among them). Renly and the Tyrells and Stormlords don't give a shit about that, and Stannis neither, from the perspective of the people who don't believe the story he tells about Cersei's children. For them that would be just an excuse to mask his ambition and lust for power. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Samantha Stark Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 1 minute ago, Lord Varys said: There still are Targaryen loyalists around, though. They just sit still because no Targaryen made a move after Robert's death. That there are...but why would anyone risk declaring for the Targs in the middle of the crapstorm, when you had not one but two (or three, depending on how you look at it) Baratheon claimants. Robert's reign was a golden one, and people always want more peace and property. Who knows what you're getting with the Targs at that point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lion of the West Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 On 2017-01-29 at 2:52 PM, Lord Varys said: I'd not say there is a line of succession in the sense we know can give lines of succession for kingdoms consisting of hundreds or thousands of people. No, of course not. But three or four people should be reasonable. On 2017-01-29 at 2:52 PM, Lord Varys said: What I think we can say is that people in Westeros believed an elder son should come before a younger son, and an elder brother before a younger. That's it. Whether a grandson comes before a younger son of a king is up to debate, and things should become even more complicated than that farther down the family tree. I think we've already had this discussion and at least I've come to the conclusion that as any contraversy comes from there being other heirs than the king's trueborn sons. On 2017-01-29 at 2:52 PM, Lord Varys said: I actually still wonder how this went through. The Unworthy seems to have been bed-ridden for quite some time before he died. And he did legitimize the bastards on his deathbed. Granted, his court was most likely the most corrupt court in Westerosi history but still some people must have seen the danger for the Realm in such an act. Not to mention the High Septon's thoughts on the matter. Corruption can be a matter of perspective in some cases. For Aegon IV's purposes I doubt the court was not filling its role perfectly well. And note that many of those people high in Aegon IV's favor could not hope to retain it under his son and thus should have every reason to ensure that Aegon IV's will was spread around, either as a last "fuck you" to Daeron or to ensure that Daemon could be groomed to lead a rebellion down the line. Hell, they could well have done a Stannis and spread the word far and wide to ensure that Daeron could not just pretend the legitimizations never happened. On 2017-01-29 at 2:52 PM, Lord Varys said: Most likely Aegon IV's last Hand (still Jon Hightower?) ensured that it publicly declared, and then Daeron II later decided to let it stand, intending to befriend those acknowledged half-siblings he know of rather than kill, banish, or imprison them all. But one imagines the Crown quietly ensured that all the many baseborn children of Aegon IV got no special treatment whatsoever. Else some of them would have risen to prominence. See above. I agree that it was probably publically declared in order to force it on Daeron. On 2017-01-29 at 2:52 PM, Lord Varys said: Yeah, it was basically all about Robert's character flaws. However, he doesn't give any impression that he actually liked his children very much or wanted to spend time with them. I mean, we could have seen him hang around with Tommen or Joffrey during the tourney or other occasions we meet him in Ned's chapters. But nothing of this sort happens, and we later learn that Robert never was close to his children. I agree. Robert was probably scared or a confrontation with Cersei and so just let up his children rather than take the verbal battles with the queen over the children. On 2017-01-29 at 2:52 PM, Lord Varys said: Sure, the whole point of marrying Cersei was to make a powerful Lannister alliance. My point about shutting down Lannister influence was not about Robert setting Cersei aside and taking a new wife but rather not to allow Cersei to put her favorites into the Kingsguard, not allowing Cersei to make one of her sycophants (Sandor Clegane) Joff's sworn shield, and not take on those Lannister boys (one of which would effectively kill him) his squires. Not to mention not loaning a lot of money from the Lannisters. True, Robert should have kept fewer Lannisters, even if I don't think you can shut them out entirely, and a more mixed crew in the Red Keep. On 2017-01-29 at 2:52 PM, Lord Varys said: If Robert truly thought Cersei had to much influence over Joffrey he should have limited the power she had at court. And he could have done. Instead he gave in to her demands even during 'Arya's trial'. That's really disgusting if he actually dislikes his wife. Not at all. It ties perfectly in with his personality and the things posted above. Robert couldn't handle non-fighting conflicts and he didn't know how to run a court, and even less something as large as a royal court in Westeros. I don't think the problem was that Robert didn't think that Cersei had to much, or rather a poor influence, on the children but rather that he wasn't capable of taking the fight with her to get take command over the children's education and spend time with them. On 2017-01-29 at 2:52 PM, Lord Varys said: See above. I expect things wouldn't have been as clear as they were had Prince Valarr have left a young son. Was it then Daeron II's second son or Daeron II's great-grandson from his eldest son? Depends on how old the boy is and how well he seems able to handle the task. But in general I would say that Baelor's grandson should have succeeded unless there are reasons for him not to do so. On 2017-01-29 at 2:52 PM, Lord Varys said: Daeron II did name Valarr Prince of Dragonstone after his father's death but that wasn't a given. He chose his grandson over his second son Aerys most likely because Aerys was ill-suited to be king. Had Valarr been a half-mad disappointment and Aerys another Baelor Breakspear he most likely would have chosen him. I will have to agree since I've acctped the king can name an heir. On 2017-01-29 at 2:52 PM, Lord Varys said: We'll never know. But if Aerys II thought he could replace Rhaegar with Viserys, Robert certainly could also have done the same with Joff and Tommen. Except one did follow his dislike and suspecions while the other didn't. On 2017-01-29 at 2:52 PM, Lord Varys said: In the end, yes. But the scenario we are entertaining here is Robert deciding for some reason to disinherit Joffrey in favor of Tommen. He would have had a reason for that to justify it to himself. He knew that the eldest son should come first. If he came up with the idea on a whim he might just have given no reason but I find that rather hard to swallow. The fact that there was no such precedent could have dissuaded him. The best reason he might have given I can come up with would be to judge Joffrey's character as to bad to rule (like the Mad King was in the end) and thus deciding to bestow the crown on his younger brother. That would have required a fair conflict with the queen who has Joffrey as her favorite. But I agree mostly otherwise. On 2017-01-29 at 2:52 PM, Lord Varys said: One would also assume he would have tried to get his family and his wife on board with the whole thing. And if he really wanted to rid himself of Joffrey he would not just have disinherited him but also taken steps to ensure he would not be able to challenge the claim of his brother later on by giving him either to the Citadel or the Faith. Not a chance in hell that Cersei would willingly have accepted that Joffrey going anywhere except the Red Keep. It would have required Robert ot strongarm people, as far as I can see. Of course if Robet can get Tywin to get to the Red Keep and see Joffrey for himself Lord Lannister might check Cersei, but otherwise I see a plot in answer to this. On 2017-01-29 at 2:52 PM, Lord Varys said: He says 'my son Joffrey'. Ned forges it to be 'my heir'. Considering that Cersei actually rips that piece of paper apart later on it is quite clear that this wasn't the document that made Joffrey Baratheon Heir Apparent to the Iron Throne. Everybody expected Joffrey to inherit. The court, the people at Winterfell (where Joff is introduced as the Crown Prince in Jon's first chapter, I think), and even Barristan Selmy (who later speaks of Joff as the young king before he has been crowned). I agree but that's because Eddard is using the different wording to challenge Joffrey's right to rule. With the document Eddard can claim to Cersei that the king has had a deathbed change of heart and named Stannis the heir. Without the document the long time endoresement of Joffrey as the heir is what people know about. On 2017-01-29 at 2:52 PM, Lord Varys said: Considering that Heirs Apparent to the Iron Throne are named and confirmed by the kings in Westeros we can reasonably assumes that Robert did so at one day in the past, presumably shortly after Joff's birth. The Realm would have rejoiced at the birth of King Robert's heir in any scenario. His new dynasty needed heirs. Sounds reasonable. 12 hours ago, Samantha Stark said: But there is a clearly defined line of succession if Joff and co and bastards. The Starks are just adhering to it. I naturally agree with the line of normal succession since I've been arguing about if for a long time. 7 hours ago, Lord Varys said: Well, Stannis should have a better claim than Renly. Due to him being the elder and all. But do Robert's brothers truly have to be his heirs? What about Viserys and Daenerys? If Robert was a usurper and left no heirs of his own body can then his brothers actually claim his throne for themselves? This is all very tricky. Renly bases his claim in part on the fact that he is Robert's younger brother but also on Robert's own boasting that he claimed his crown with mere strength. Renly has a blood claim as well as a lot of swords so he can try to bend the rules to suit his needs. Of course Robert's brothers comes before the Targaryens. That's like saying that the Blackfyres had a claim to inherit the realm after they were kicked out. The Baratheons won the throne fair and square and now the Targaryens just have to soak it up that if they want to regain the throne, they'll have to take it by force. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Varys Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 38 minutes ago, LionoftheWest said: No, of course not. But three or four people should be reasonable. The thing is, there is no reason to actually make such a list. A king or lord usually only needs an heir and a spare, not some long list of relatives who might get ambitious and enter into deadly schemes if they actually realized that only four persons stood between them and the throne/lordship. If a king or lord has a multiple sons then the succession is pretty clear without making it explicit. It is more tricky when a lot of people die at once or shortly after each other but there is most likely a crisis and the most capable person with the best claim will most likely going to push if he or she is in a position to do so. Harrion Karstark may or may not have lost Karhold forever to his sister Alys and Sigorn of Thenn because he was a prisoner of war when the succession of Karhold was settled. Prince Aegon lost the Iron Throne because he was besieged at Crakehall when his father Aenys I died on Dragonstone. Had he been at his father's side when the man died King Aegon II would have been crowned on Dragonstone, most likely. 38 minutes ago, LionoftheWest said: Corruption can be a matter of perspective in some cases. For Aegon IV's purposes I doubt the court was not filling its role perfectly well. And note that many of those people high in Aegon IV's favor could not hope to retain it under his son and thus should have every reason to ensure that Aegon IV's will was spread around, either as a last "fuck you" to Daeron or to ensure that Daemon could be groomed to lead a rebellion down the line. Hell, they could well have done a Stannis and spread the word far and wide to ensure that Daeron could not just pretend the legitimizations never happened. I think it would have been something like that. But it is still somewhat odd that people would actually just accept the king's power to actually legitimize so many bastards. The man was dying, after all, and while I think a lot of people at court must have been invested in this decree becoming public as soon as possible one wonders why nobody actually dared question the king's authority to pull off something like that. It is one thing to legitimize a bastard in absence of a trueborn heir (prior to Aegon IV no Targaryen king had ever legitimized any royal bastards as far as we know) but quite another to actually legitimize scores or even hundreds of bastards in such a fashion. 38 minutes ago, LionoftheWest said: I agree. Robert was probably scared or a confrontation with Cersei and so just let up his children rather than take the verbal battles with the queen over the children. It also seems as if Robert simply wasn't very interested in his children. He certainly could have tried to spend time with him. Cersei prevented Jaime from being close to them so there was an opportunity for Robert to play the father. He just never took that as far as we know. 38 minutes ago, LionoftheWest said: True, Robert should have kept fewer Lannisters, even if I don't think you can shut them out entirely, and a more mixed crew in the Red Keep. Well, it was a mixed bag while Stannis and Jon Arryn were still there, but Cersei really seated her favorites in important court positions outside the Small Council. Robert was the head of the royal family, he could have refused to allow Cersei her own guard, her own money, her own women, etc. The king makes the rules, not his wife. But he let her have her way in way too many matters. 38 minutes ago, LionoftheWest said: Not at all. It ties perfectly in with his personality and the things posted above. Robert couldn't handle non-fighting conflicts and he didn't know how to run a court, and even less something as large as a royal court in Westeros. I don't think the problem was that Robert didn't think that Cersei had to much, or rather a poor influence, on the children but rather that he wasn't capable of taking the fight with her to get take command over the children's education and spend time with them. I think he actually thought killing the wolf was a good idea. He says as much thereafter. Robert doesn't think all that much about a lot of things. He doesn't want to be just, he just wants to get back to his wine bottle and/or whores. 38 minutes ago, LionoftheWest said: Depends on how old the boy is and how well he seems able to handle the task. But in general I would say that Baelor's grandson should have succeeded unless there are reasons for him not to do so. He would have been an infant or a small boy. By the way, who do you think should have succeeded Maekar I? Vaella, Maegor, or Aegon V? It seems you like the primogeniture thing but note that Jaehaerys I, the Great Council of 101 AC, the court after the death of Baelor I, and the Great Council of 233 AC all decided against primogeniture when the choice was between the grandchild or great-grandchild of a king and a son of the king. In that sense we actually don't have a good reason to believe that the Westerosi people actually thought a grandchild takes precedence over a younger son of a king. 38 minutes ago, LionoftheWest said: Not a chance in hell that Cersei would willingly have accepted that Joffrey going anywhere except the Red Keep. It would have required Robert ot strongarm people, as far as I can see. Of course if Robet can get Tywin to get to the Red Keep and see Joffrey for himself Lord Lannister might check Cersei, but otherwise I see a plot in answer to this. I think Robert could also have strongarmed Cersei, but that might not have been necessary. It is quite clear that Robert would never have done such a thing because he never even contemplated it. If we speculate about him doing it something would have to happen to convince him that something of that sort was necessary. Say, if Joffrey was caught red-handed murdering somebody. Or he was caught by Cersei brutalizing Myrcella. That could have changed her perception of her golden boy, too. Even Cersei could change her mind. 38 minutes ago, LionoftheWest said: I agree but that's because Eddard is using the different wording to challenge Joffrey's right to rule. With the document Eddard can claim to Cersei that the king has had a deathbed change of heart and named Stannis the heir. Without the document the long time endoresement of Joffrey as the heir is what people know about. Yeah, that was my point. Joff had long been the confirmed heir when Robert died. He was not explicitly named or confirmed as heir in Robert's last will. 38 minutes ago, LionoftheWest said: Of course Robert's brothers comes before the Targaryens. That's like saying that the Blackfyres had a claim to inherit the realm after they were kicked out. The Baratheons won the throne fair and square and now the Targaryens just have to soak it up that if they want to regain the throne, they'll have to take it by force. So you think Aenys Blackfyre would have been laughed out of the Great Council of 233 AC, and there was no reason to believe that any of the lords would have listened to that man if he had been allowed to speak since his father and brothers were all failed rebels and traitors, and everybody thought and agreed he was? I don't think so. Robert's death actually created a power vacuum. He clearly has no clear heir. Cersei says Joffrey is Robert's son and heir, Stannis says Joffrey and his siblings aren't Robert's seed, and Renly doesn't care about any of that. If Viserys III had come knocking at the door around that time half the Realm or more might have decided to remember that Robert had been a usurper and that the Targaryens were the rightful royal dynasty. The Targaryens have a claim to the Iron Throne as long as the dynasty lives and people are willing to listen to what they have to say when they say they are the rightful kings. A mere fifteen years is not enough to make people forget that. Fifty years later things might look different. But the Blackfyre cause was still somewhat alive after fifty years. The same goes on in the real world. Kings or former kings and their heirs never let go of their titles and claims if they are not pushed to do so. And in a society like Westeros only the Targaryens themselves could decide to give up their claims. Decrees and laws made by traitors are worthless in their eyes as well as the eyes of their followers. Sure, eventually they would become a laughingstock across the Narrow Sea if they had no success just as the Blackfyres were. But just because there is some Baratheon interregnum doesn't mean they have to reconquer Westeros. There could have been a Great Council offering them the throne, Aegon could have a lot of support simply with his name and a lot of fancy speeches enticing the commoners, etc. He does not really have to take back the Realm from the Baratheons in the present situations because the Realm no longer has a universally accepted king. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lion of the West Posted February 1, 2017 Share Posted February 1, 2017 On 2017-01-30 at 7:59 PM, Lord Varys said: The thing is, there is no reason to actually make such a list. A king or lord usually only needs an heir and a spare, not some long list of relatives who might get ambitious and enter into deadly schemes if they actually realized that only four persons stood between them and the throne/lordship. There is the good reason to prevent infighting if calamity would strike, not to mention that the whole thing can be redone if the king so desires. In fact not having such a list kind of opens things up for pretty everyone in that they can become king and there are only some two or three persons they are away from power.  Quote If a king or lord has a multiple sons then the succession is pretty clear without making it explicit. It is more tricky when a lot of people die at once or shortly after each other but there is most likely a crisis and the most capable person with the best claim will most likely going to push if he or she is in a position to do so. Harrion Karstark may or may not have lost Karhold forever to his sister Alys and Sigorn of Thenn because he was a prisoner of war when the succession of Karhold was settled. Prince Aegon lost the Iron Throne because he was besieged at Crakehall when his father Aenys I died on Dragonstone. Had he been at his father's side when the man died King Aegon II would have been crowned on Dragonstone, most likely. If the succession is pretty clear, then there is a line of succession. And while I agree that capable people with a claim will normally claw themselves to the top in a crisis, it does not make them less usurpers when they bypass the normal heir. But I think that you are mistaken in that Aegon II would have succeeded Aenys if the two of them had been at Dragonstone. More likely Maegor and Visenya would have added another burial to the local septon's schedule. At no point was, as far as I know, Maegor chosen as Aenys' heir and so it was an usurpation pure and simple. Quote I think it would have been something like that. But it is still somewhat odd that people would actually just accept the king's power to actually legitimize so many bastards. The man was dying, after all, and while I think a lot of people at court must have been invested in this decree becoming public as soon as possible one wonders why nobody actually dared question the king's authority to pull off something like that. It is one thing to legitimize a bastard in absence of a trueborn heir (prior to Aegon IV no Targaryen king had ever legitimized any royal bastards as far as we know) but quite another to actually legitimize scores or even hundreds of bastards in such a fashion. Many of them would be in bad standing with Daeron II and so they could hope to cause problems for Daeron II with the Great Bastards. I don't see why its odd or strange at all. They might have been totally in with Aegon IV's potential plan to put Daemon on the throne down the line and so ensured that his legitimization was spread far and wide. Quote It also seems as if Robert simply wasn't very interested in his children. He certainly could have tried to spend time with him. Cersei prevented Jaime from being close to them so there was an opportunity for Robert to play the father. He just never took that as far as we know. Wasn't Cersei always around the children? We know that Robert always bows before the Lannisters and thus he would probably have taken the easy way out of not spending time with his children rather than to risk a verbal fight with Cersei. Because as you've probably noted, Cersei isn't easily scared or backs down from a fight. Quote Well, it was a mixed bag while Stannis and Jon Arryn were still there, but Cersei really seated her favorites in important court positions outside the Small Council. Robert was the head of the royal family, he could have refused to allow Cersei her own guard, her own money, her own women, etc. The king makes the rules, not his wife. But he let her have her way in way too many matters. As I said, Robert was clueless on how to struggle with someone that didn't involve physical fighting and Cersei is always ready for a fight with whoever it is. So I would say that to ensure that he didn't have to take a confrontation with Cersei, Robert bent to the Lannisters, just like he always did. Quote I think he actually thought killing the wolf was a good idea. He says as much thereafter. Robert doesn't think all that much about a lot of things. He doesn't want to be just, he just wants to get back to his wine bottle and/or whores. To be honest though, regardless of what we think of Joffrey, it was a big predator animal which attacked and harmed a human. If it had been a dog, odds are that it to would have been put down as attacking humans, and especially royals, isn't something that a supposedly tame animal is supposed to be allowed to do. That's rather simply a very dangerous behavior for a huge creature like a direwolf. Quote  He would have been an infant or a small boy. By the way, who do you think should have succeeded Maekar I? Vaella, Maegor, or Aegon V? The theoretically best solution would have been for Bloodraven, followed by Aegon V, to act as regents for Prince Maegor untill he came of age. But given the threat from House Blackfyre I would suppose that Aegon V was the realistic choice as it provided an adult male for the throne. Quote It seems you like the primogeniture thing but note that Jaehaerys I, the Great Council of 101 AC, the court after the death of Baelor I, and the Great Council of 233 AC all decided against primogeniture when the choice was between the grandchild or great-grandchild of a king and a son of the king. I am well aware that my impression from Westeros is that primogeniture is the normal way to conduct inheritance business in Westeros. But what can I say. I am also well aware that the Great Councils decided on a different basis. But do note that I do think that Rhaenys should have been queen before Viserys I and that Daena should have been queen before Viserys II. Its an evil thing that so many women have been robbed of their birthright, from my point of view. Quote In that sense we actually don't have a good reason to believe that the Westerosi people actually thought a grandchild takes precedence over a younger son of a king. I am rather suprised you bring this up since it was months since I agreed that younger son of the king would seem to normally take predecent over the grandchild. Either you're trying to score some point or you're memory is slipping. Because what can I say. Unlike many others I keep an open mind and a reasonable disposition. Quote I think Robert could also have strongarmed Cersei, but that might not have been necessary. It is quite clear that Robert would never have done such a thing because he never even contemplated it. If we speculate about him doing it something would have to happen to convince him that something of that sort was necessary. Say, if Joffrey was caught red-handed murdering somebody. Or he was caught by Cersei brutalizing Myrcella. That could have changed her perception of her golden boy, too. Even Cersei could change her mind. Problem is still that to make anything, Robert would need to strongarm Cersei and Cersei would need to let Robert into the children's life. She clearly wants Robert to stay away and would most likely have tried to handle it herself. Quote Yeah, that was my point. Joff had long been the confirmed heir when Robert died. He was not explicitly named or confirmed as heir in Robert's last will. In Robert's actual words Joffrey was confirmed as the heir, but Eddard re-wrote the words to say otherwise. So I dare say it was Robert's intention to name Joffrey explicit as his heir. Quote So you think Aenys Blackfyre would have been laughed out of the Great Council of 233 AC, and there was no reason to believe that any of the lords would have listened to that man if he had been allowed to speak since his father and brothers were all failed rebels and traitors, and everybody thought and agreed he was? I would expect many traitors and honorless men to pick a Blackfyre over a Targaryen king they didn't like. Bloodraven's words for fools and malcontents ring true. Quote I don't think so. You are free to do so. Quote Robert's death actually created a power vacuum. He clearly has no clear heir. Cersei says Joffrey is Robert's son and heir, Stannis says Joffrey and his siblings aren't Robert's seed, and Renly doesn't care about any of that. If Viserys III had come knocking at the door around that time half the Realm or more might have decided to remember that Robert had been a usurper and that the Targaryens were the rightful royal dynasty. No. There is no power vacuum because Robert had for years named Joffrey as his heir. Just because he was contested by one righteous uncle and one power hungry one, don't mean that Joffrey wasn't the heir in the eyes of the realm. If Viserys "the Begger King" Targaryen had come knocking he would have his head on a spear before nightfall. No one stood up for the Targaryens when Robert was alive and when he was dead they all scrambled for one Baratheon or another, provided they didn't try to break free from the Iron Throne. No one gave a single thought to the Targaryens despite Viserys' delusions. Quote The Targaryens have a claim to the Iron Throne as long as the dynasty lives and people are willing to listen to what they have to say when they say they are the rightful kings. A mere fifteen years is not enough to make people forget that. Fifty years later things might look different. But the Blackfyre cause was still somewhat alive after fifty years. Problem is that while the Blackfyres could keep their cause running for a decade, Viserys was mocked as the Begger King and Daenaerys didn't want to know what they called her. It remains to see if the Targaryen will succeed where the Blackfyres failed but then against the Targaryens had way more luck with events outside of their control than the Blackfyres ever had. Quote The same goes on in the real world. Kings or former kings and their heirs never let go of their titles and claims if they are not pushed to do so. And in a society like Westeros only the Targaryens themselves could decide to give up their claims. Decrees and laws made by traitors are worthless in their eyes as well as the eyes of their followers. Sure, eventually they would become a laughingstock across the Narrow Sea if they had no success just as the Blackfyres were. But just because there is some Baratheon interregnum doesn't mean they have to reconquer Westeros. There could have been a Great Council offering them the throne, Aegon could have a lot of support simply with his name and a lot of fancy speeches enticing the commoners, etc. He does not really have to take back the Realm from the Baratheons in the present situations because the Realm no longer has a universally accepted king. Well, since Viserys was named the Begger King and everyone had given up the Targaryens for dead or lost, I dare say that no internal restoration of House Targaryen was coming in Westeros. Its rather telling that apparently people were putting down flowers on the spot where Daemon Blackfyre died, but no one puts down a single flower for any dead Targaryen. But like I said. The Targaryens now have to play from the Blackfyre side of the table and pretty much with the Blackfyre set of cards. It remains to see if they can pull it off. Quote What I think we can say is that people in Westeros believed an elder son should come before a younger son, and an elder brother before a younger. That's it. Whether a grandson comes before a younger son of a king is up to debate, and things should become even more complicated than that farther down the family tree. I think we've already had this discussion and at least I've come to the conclusion that as any contraversy comes from there being other heirs than the king's trueborn sons. Quote I actually still wonder how this went through. The Unworthy seems to have been bed-ridden for quite some time before he died. And he did legitimize the bastards on his deathbed. Granted, his court was most likely the most corrupt court in Westerosi history but still some people must have seen the danger for the Realm in such an act. Not to mention the High Septon's thoughts on the matter. Corruption can be a matter of perspective in some cases. For Aegon IV's purposes I doubt the court was not filling its role perfectly well. And note that many of those people high in Aegon IV's favor could not hope to retain it under his son and thus should have every reason to ensure that Aegon IV's will was spread around, either as a last "fuck you" to Daeron or to ensure that Daemon could be groomed to lead a rebellion down the line. Hell, they could well have done a Stannis and spread the word far and wide to ensure that Daeron could not just pretend the legitimizations never happened. Quote Most likely Aegon IV's last Hand (still Jon Hightower?) ensured that it publicly declared, and then Daeron II later decided to let it stand, intending to befriend those acknowledged half-siblings he know of rather than kill, banish, or imprison them all. But one imagines the Crown quietly ensured that all the many baseborn children of Aegon IV got no special treatment whatsoever. Else some of them would have risen to prominence. See above. I agree that it was probably publically declared in order to force it on Daeron. Quote Yeah, it was basically all about Robert's character flaws. However, he doesn't give any impression that he actually liked his children very much or wanted to spend time with them. I mean, we could have seen him hang around with Tommen or Joffrey during the tourney or other occasions we meet him in Ned's chapters. But nothing of this sort happens, and we later learn that Robert never was close to his children. I agree. Robert was probably scared or a confrontation with Cersei and so just let up his children rather than take the verbal battles with the queen over the children. Quote Sure, the whole point of marrying Cersei was to make a powerful Lannister alliance. My point about shutting down Lannister influence was not about Robert setting Cersei aside and taking a new wife but rather not to allow Cersei to put her favorites into the Kingsguard, not allowing Cersei to make one of her sycophants (Sandor Clegane) Joff's sworn shield, and not take on those Lannister boys (one of which would effectively kill him) his squires. Not to mention not loaning a lot of money from the Lannisters. True, Robert should have kept fewer Lannisters, even if I don't think you can shut them out entirely, and a more mixed crew in the Red Keep. Quote If Robert truly thought Cersei had to much influence over Joffrey he should have limited the power she had at court. And he could have done. Instead he gave in to her demands even during 'Arya's trial'. That's really disgusting if he actually dislikes his wife. Not at all. It ties perfectly in with his personality and the things posted above. Robert couldn't handle non-fighting conflicts and he didn't know how to run a court, and even less something as large as a royal court in Westeros. I don't think the problem was that Robert didn't think that Cersei had to much, or rather a poor influence, on the children but rather that he wasn't capable of taking the fight with her to get take command over the children's education and spend time with them. Quote See above. I expect things wouldn't have been as clear as they were had Prince Valarr have left a young son. Was it then Daeron II's second son or Daeron II's great-grandson from his eldest son? Depends on how old the boy is and how well he seems able to handle the task. But in general I would say that Baelor's grandson should have succeeded unless there are reasons for him not to do so. Quote Daeron II did name Valarr Prince of Dragonstone after his father's death but that wasn't a given. He chose his grandson over his second son Aerys most likely because Aerys was ill-suited to be king. Had Valarr been a half-mad disappointment and Aerys another Baelor Breakspear he most likely would have chosen him. I will have to agree since I've acctped the king can name an heir. Quote We'll never know. But if Aerys II thought he could replace Rhaegar with Viserys, Robert certainly could also have done the same with Joff and Tommen. Except one did follow his dislike and suspicions while the other didn't, and tried to arrange for a smooth transfer of power after his death, even if he failed in that. On 2017-01-30 at 10:33 AM, Lord Varys said: Well, Stannis should have a better claim than Renly. Due to him being the elder and all. But do Robert's brothers truly have to be his heirs? What about Viserys and Daenerys? If Robert was a usurper and left no heirs of his own body can then his brothers actually claim his throne for themselves? Yes they can. The Baratheons are the new ruling House of Westeros and thus Robert's brothers do indeed have a claim better than any Targaryen cast offs living as Begger Kings in Essos. On 2017-01-30 at 10:33 AM, Lord Varys said: This is all very tricky. Renly bases his claim in part on the fact that he is Robert's younger brother but also on Robert's own boasting that he claimed his crown with mere strength. Renly has a blood claim as well as a lot of swords so he can try to bend the rules to suit his needs. I agree, that's how realpolitik works in Westeros. Although he would set a horrible example and his heirs would have to struggle a great deal to hold on to power after his example. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Varys Posted February 2, 2017 Share Posted February 2, 2017 7 hours ago, LionoftheWest said: There is the good reason to prevent infighting if calamity would strike, not to mention that the whole thing can be redone if the king so desires. In fact not having such a list kind of opens things up for pretty everyone in that they can become king and there are only some two or three persons they are away from power. Sure, but the point with such accidental/unexpected deaths is that they are unexpected. If Rhaegar had become king his eldest son would have succeeded him. Aerys could only pass over Aegon because Rhaegar predeceased him, and the same goes for Princess Rhaenys and Laenor Velaryon, and so on. In such a medieval setting people didn't plan for catastrophes. They hoped for the best and did not prepare for the worst (many royals dying) because that would have meant that the spares would have thought they should be the heirs. Quote If the succession is pretty clear, then there is a line of succession. And while I agree that capable people with a claim will normally claw themselves to the top in a crisis, it does not make them less usurpers when they bypass the normal heir. Not if the heir isn't clear. You know, when the natural heirs predecease the king, and the king fails to name a new heir, like it happened in Maekar's case. Quote But I think that you are mistaken in that Aegon II would have succeeded Aenys if the two of them had been at Dragonstone. More likely Maegor and Visenya would have added another burial to the local septon's schedule. At no point was, as far as I know, Maegor chosen as Aenys' heir and so it was an usurpation pure and simple. If Prince Aegon had been with Aenys I and Alyssa they could have crowned him before Maegor returned. In fact, if Aegon had been there they might even have been able to prevent Visenya from leaving the island altogether. But that would depend on the character of Prince Aegon. Was he capable or not. Quote Wasn't Cersei always around the children? We know that Robert always bows before the Lannisters and thus he would probably have taken the easy way out of not spending time with his children rather than to risk a verbal fight with Cersei. Because as you've probably noted, Cersei isn't easily scared or backs down from a fight. Robert doesn't always bow down to Cersei. He decided who Joffrey is to marry, he decided who should be his new Hand, he gave Storm's End and Dragonstone to his brothers, he did not punish Arya after the fight. Cersei wasn't always around the children, especially not Joffrey who certainly seems to have spent more time in the yard and with the men than his mother. What little we know about the situation when Robert was still alive indicates that the royal children had their septas and tutors (remember the septa Myrcella and Tommen hang out with when Arya catches cats?) while Cersei and Robert did whatever the hell they liked. Quote To be honest though, regardless of what we think of Joffrey, it was a big predator animal which attacked and harmed a human. If it had been a dog, odds are that it to would have been put down as attacking humans, and especially royals, isn't something that a supposedly tame animal is supposed to be allowed to do. That's rather simply a very dangerous behavior for a huge creature like a direwolf. Well, you recall that they did kill Lady and not Nymeria, right? I agree in principle, though, however it was Robert who begged Ned to become his Hand. If he truly wanted his friend at his side and despised his wife as much as he did he should have favored him rather than Cersei. Quote The theoretically best solution would have been for Bloodraven, followed by Aegon V, to act as regents for Prince Maegor untill he came of age. But given the threat from House Blackfyre I would suppose that Aegon V was the realistic choice as it provided an adult male for the throne. But wouldn't the right of primogeniture favor Princess Vaella rather than Prince Maegor? Vaella was the only child of Daeron the Drunk, Maekar's eldest son. Maegor was just the son of Maekar's second son. How can you favor Princess Rhaenys in 101 AC and not Princess Vaella in 233 AC? It is basically the same thing. The grandson through the younger male line against the granddaughter from the eldest son. Or do you think lackwits don't have any claims? The fact that a Second Dance was about to break out could indicate that they would not have been able to appoint a single regent who also served as Protector and Hand. Such a shared power solution could have made the Regency of either Maegor of Vaella as bad (or even worse) as the Regency of Aegon III. I expect this to have been a vital reason why the lords favored an adult king, either Aemon or Egg. Pretty much nobody seems to have supported Maegor or Vaella, after all. Quote I am well aware that my impression from Westeros is that primogeniture is the normal way to conduct inheritance business in Westeros. But what can I say. I am also well aware that the Great Councils decided on a different basis. But do note that I do think that Rhaenys should have been queen before Viserys I and that Daena should have been queen before Viserys II. Its an evil thing that so many women have been robbed of their birthright, from my point of view. Then why not Vaella, too? Quote Problem is still that to make anything, Robert would need to strongarm Cersei and Cersei would need to let Robert into the children's life. She clearly wants Robert to stay away and would most likely have tried to handle it herself. Well, of course we would be talking about a scenario where the crime wasn't easily hushed up. Quote In Robert's actual words Joffrey was confirmed as the heir, but Eddard re-wrote the words to say otherwise. So I dare say it was Robert's intention to name Joffrey explicit as his heir. Robert implicitly spoke of Joffrey as his successor. The point I was making is that Joff wasn't made heir by Robert's will but it was just supposed to establish Joff's regency government. That Joff was the heir had been clear to everyone long before. Quote I would expect many traitors and honorless men to pick a Blackfyre over a Targaryen king they didn't like. Bloodraven's words for fools and malcontents ring true. But that would have meant that Aenys Blackfyre - and the Blackfyres in general - still had a claim at this point. Having claim more or less means that people are inclined to hear you out when you say you should be king or lord of this or that rather than laugh you out of the room. Quote No. There is no power vacuum because Robert had for years named Joffrey as his heir. Just because he was contested by one righteous uncle and one power hungry one, don't mean that Joffrey wasn't the heir in the eyes of the realm. Well, you should reread AGoT. If there was no power vacuum then Tywin would have been Hand and had ensured that his grandson is crowned without pretenders standing up all across the Realm. Nor would anybody have spread foul rumors about the parentage of Cersei's children. Because if Joff had been in power any such rumors would have been suppressed. Joff appeared to be the heir until the day his father died. Then he wasn't because of the actions of Ned Stark. But even without Ned Stannis and Renly would still have contested Joffrey's claim and that doesn't mean he was an universally acknowledged heir nor that his succession was secure. It obviously wasn't. Quote If Viserys "the Begger King" Targaryen had come knocking he would have his head on a spear before nightfall. No one stood up for the Targaryens when Robert was alive and when he was dead they all scrambled for one Baratheon or another, provided they didn't try to break free from the Iron Throne. No one gave a single thought to the Targaryens despite Viserys' delusions. I did not mean Viserys III knocking at the door alone. I meant him landing with 40,000 Dothraki screamers in the Crownlands. That would have had an impact. Quote Problem is that while the Blackfyres could keep their cause running for a decade, Viserys was mocked as the Begger King and Daenaerys didn't want to know what they called her. It remains to see if the Targaryen will succeed where the Blackfyres failed but then against the Targaryens had way more luck with events outside of their control than the Blackfyres ever had. Well, since Viserys was named the Begger King and everyone had given up the Targaryens for dead or lost, I dare say that no internal restoration of House Targaryen was coming in Westeros. Its rather telling that apparently people were putting down flowers on the spot where Daemon Blackfyre died, but no one puts down a single flower for any dead Targaryen. But like I said. The Targaryens now have to play from the Blackfyre side of the table and pretty much with the Blackfyre set of cards. It remains to see if they can pull it off. The Martells were plotting in their favor, and Viserys III struck a deal with Khal Drogo to invade Westeros. Nothing came of them but it could have come something from that. If Viserys III had come either at the beginning of the War of the Five Kings or after the Blackwater half the Realm or more (Dorne, the North, the Riverlands, possibly the Vale) would have declared for him because he would have been their hope to deal with the Lannisters. I don't expect some lords or even a Great Council to offer the crown to Viserys III, of course, although even that might have happened if all the Baratheons (Robert, Cersei's children, Stannis, Shireen, Renly) had died at sea, or something of that sort. That would have meant an empty throne with no clear heir, making the old dynasty look a lot more attractive. This kind of thing happened more often than not in real life monarchies in similar situations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lion of the West Posted February 3, 2017 Share Posted February 3, 2017 On 2017-02-02 at 2:06 AM, Lord Varys said: Sure, but the point with such accidental/unexpected deaths is that they are unexpected. If Rhaegar had become king his eldest son would have succeeded him. Aerys could only pass over Aegon because Rhaegar predeceased him, and the same goes for Princess Rhaenys and Laenor Velaryon, and so on. For the first thing you have to be mad in Westeros to think that sickness or war wipping off a few members of your House is unlikely to happen. Better have spare to much than spare to little. And I don't see why Aegon must follow Rhaegar. If Rhaegar would decide against it or if Aerys could think that Aegon is unfit its within the king's power to proclaim it as such. On 2017-02-02 at 2:06 AM, Lord Varys said: In such a medieval setting people didn't plan for catastrophes. They hoped for the best and did not prepare for the worst (many royals dying) because that would have meant that the spares would have thought they should be the heirs. Yes, I agree that people don't plan for everyone to die, but there should have been some of thought put into the succession. The main problem I see with thi reasoning is that the ruler can be stuck with a bad heir because there are relatives around to pick a good heir. Kind of what happened with the Boltons where Roose has no one but Ramsay, who is really unsuitable to be a lord. On 2017-02-02 at 2:06 AM, Lord Varys said: Not if the heir isn't clear. You know, when the natural heirs predecease the king, and the king fails to name a new heir, like it happened in Maekar's case. Except that's very special circumstance and at most times the ruler has already an heir ready shortly after the first one died. Its a mark against Maekar that he went into battle personally without having a new heir named by then. On 2017-02-02 at 2:06 AM, Lord Varys said: If Prince Aegon had been with Aenys I and Alyssa they could have crowned him before Maegor returned. In fact, if Aegon had been there they might even have been able to prevent Visenya from leaving the island altogether. But that would depend on the character of Prince Aegon. Was he capable or not. Prince Aegon was capable enough to raise an army and brave enough to fight Maegor. That's something. And I agree that Prince Aegon would be much harder to coup away if he had been present at Dragonstone. On 2017-02-02 at 2:06 AM, Lord Varys said: Robert doesn't always bow down to Cersei. He decided who Joffrey is to marry, he decided who should be his new Hand, he gave Storm's End and Dragonstone to his brothers, he did not punish Arya after the fight. True enough. Some strength was left in that Stag also in his final years. On 2017-02-02 at 2:06 AM, Lord Varys said: Cersei wasn't always around the children, especially not Joffrey who certainly seems to have spent more time in the yard and with the men than his mother. What little we know about the situation when Robert was still alive indicates that the royal children had their septas and tutors (remember the septa Myrcella and Tommen hang out with when Arya catches cats?) while Cersei and Robert did whatever the hell they liked. I agree, but even so Eddard was part of Sansa's life also when Septa Mordaine was alive. The main thing is that I maintain that if Robert had a thought to involve himself more with the children, Cersei would note, and do note that she's seen far more with her children than any septa. And Cersei would have done what she could to stop Robert to be with the children. Once more leading to a confrontation with Cersei that Robert was clueless on how to handle. On 2017-02-02 at 2:06 AM, Lord Varys said: Well, you recall that they did kill Lady and not Nymeria, right? I agree in principle, though, however it was Robert who begged Ned to become his Hand. If he truly wanted his friend at his side and despised his wife as much as he did he should have favored him rather than Cersei. I recall, because as I know they didn't find Nymeria and Cersei hated all the direwolves. Another example of Robert bending to the Lannisters. On 2017-02-02 at 2:06 AM, Lord Varys said: But wouldn't the right of primogeniture favor Princess Vaella rather than Prince Maegor? Vaella was the only child of Daeron the Drunk, Maekar's eldest son. Maegor was just the son of Maekar's second son. How can you favor Princess Rhaenys in 101 AC and not Princess Vaella in 233 AC? It is basically the same thing. The grandson through the younger male line against the granddaughter from the eldest son. Or do you think lackwits don't have any claims? I blame this family three because it gav me the impression that Aerion was Maekar's firstborn and I was sloppy enough to not double check the birth order for Maekar's children. http://awoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/Maekar_I_Targaryen But with the information reactified then its should obviously be that Vaella should be the one whom Bloodraven and Aegon V rule for a regents. But I do think that lackwits have claims, but they will probably be ruled by a Hand who isn't really apppointed by the lackwits themselves. See Lolly for how people in Westeros seems to treat lackwits with a claim. On 2017-02-02 at 2:06 AM, Lord Varys said: The fact that a Second Dance was about to break out could indicate that they would not have been able to appoint a single regent who also served as Protector and Hand. Such a shared power solution could have made the Regency of either Maegor of Vaella as bad (or even worse) as the Regency of Aegon III. I don't see it. And after Bloodraven dispatched with Aenys Blackfyre then there was no real focial point to rally opposition around. I don't think that it would have been a second dance, especially if Princess Vaella and Prince Maegor would be betrothed during the Great Council. On 2017-02-02 at 2:06 AM, Lord Varys said: I expect this to have been a vital reason why the lords favored an adult king, either Aemon or Egg. Pretty much nobody seems to have supported Maegor or Vaella, after all. Yes. On 2017-02-02 at 2:06 AM, Lord Varys said: Then why not Vaella, too? Because I misremembered the birth order of Maekar's children and didn't double check it. On 2017-02-02 at 2:06 AM, Lord Varys said: Well, of course we would be talking about a scenario where the crime wasn't easily hushed up. Then things would probably have fallen to Robert who would be unable to do anything but bend to Cersei's wishes. On 2017-02-02 at 2:06 AM, Lord Varys said: Robert implicitly spoke of Joffrey as his successor. The point I was making is that Joff wasn't made heir by Robert's will but it was just supposed to establish Joff's regency government. That Joff was the heir had been clear to everyone long before. Actuallty Joffrey was both but Lord Stark re-wrote the will for Lord Stark's purposes. On 2017-02-02 at 2:06 AM, Lord Varys said: But that would have meant that Aenys Blackfyre - and the Blackfyres in general - still had a claim at this point. Having claim more or less means that people are inclined to hear you out when you say you should be king or lord of this or that rather than laugh you out of the room. I am sure many fools and malcontents listened to the Blackfyres but as seen in the Fourth Rebellion, they were a dying breed. On 2017-02-02 at 2:06 AM, Lord Varys said: Well, you should reread AGoT. If there was no power vacuum then Tywin would have been Hand and had ensured that his grandson is crowned without pretenders standing up all across the Realm. Nor would anybody have spread foul rumors about the parentage of Cersei's children. Because if Joff had been in power any such rumors would have been suppressed. Was there a power vaccum when Daemon rebelled as well? No, but he had swords to gather behind him and so fought. A power vaccum speaks to me for a situation like the Faith Militant rather than a contested succession. And it turned into a shitstorm because many incompetent people had lots of power at that given moment. On 2017-02-02 at 2:06 AM, Lord Varys said: Joff appeared to be the heir until the day his father died. Then he wasn't because of the actions of Ned Stark. But even without Ned Stannis and Renly would still have contested Joffrey's claim and that doesn't mean he was an universally acknowledged heir nor that his succession was secure. It obviously wasn't.  That he was the heir was clear, But also that the part of his family which he favored had a hostile relationship with the other family is also clear. On 2017-02-02 at 2:06 AM, Lord Varys said: I did not mean Viserys III knocking at the door alone. I meant him landing with 40,000 Dothraki screamers in the Crownlands. That would have had an impact. Yes, he would probably be joined by some and then destroyed when his screams dies trying to siege a major city or castle.40 000 screamers can certainly causel lots of misery but they are badly equipped to take on competently led, well equipped and numerous armies such as were raised during the early time of the War of Five Kings. Hell, chances are that they would run into Stannis fleet and we don't know how many thousand screamers would die in the salt water. On 2017-02-02 at 2:06 AM, Lord Varys said: The Martells were plotting in their favor, and Viserys III struck a deal with Khal Drogo to invade Westeros. Nothing came of them but it could have come something from that. If Viserys III had come either at the beginning of the War of the Five Kings or after the Blackwater half the Realm or more (Dorne, the North, the Riverlands, possibly the Vale) would have declared for him because he would have been their hope to deal with the Lannisters. Not really. The Riverlands and North are all into separatism, not a Targaryen restoriation and the Vale failed to rise with the Starks and so won't rise for the Targaryens. That leaves Dorne, separated from Viserys III by half a continent and with the Reach-Stormlands and those armies between them while Dorne has very little naval power that we know of. Killing the Lannisters hasn't been the goal of any factions so far in Westeros, but merely an end to reach some other goal. On 2017-02-02 at 2:06 AM, Lord Varys said: I don't expect some lords or even a Great Council to offer the crown to Viserys III, of course, although even that might have happened if all the Baratheons (Robert, Cersei's children, Stannis, Shireen, Renly) had died at sea, or something of that sort. That would have meant an empty throne with no clear heir, making the old dynasty look a lot more attractive. This kind of thing happened more often than not in real life monarchies in similar situations. Could've happened but it didn't. And I don't think that a dynasty violently overthrown in recent memory would be easilly returned to power peacefully when their most visible candidate is known as "the Begger King". That's a though sell to the lords of Westeros. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Varys Posted February 3, 2017 Share Posted February 3, 2017 46 minutes ago, LionoftheWest said: For the first thing you have to be mad in Westeros to think that sickness or war wipping off a few members of your House is unlikely to happen. Better have spare to much than spare to little. Well, but it is still not the way of the people to prepare for this kind of thing. Ned Stark does not expect his cousins in the Vale to inherit Winterfell because some sickness could carry away all his children. The Lannisters don't groom Stafford's children to take over the Rock, just in case, because Tytos' entire branch could be killed. 46 minutes ago, LionoftheWest said: And I don't see why Aegon must follow Rhaegar. If Rhaegar would decide against it or if Aerys could think that Aegon is unfit its within the king's power to proclaim it as such. Sure, Rhaegar could have picked another heir for some reason (assuming he had any heirs besides Aegon and Rhaenys) but we actually have textual evidence that he wanted Aegon to be king after him. 46 minutes ago, LionoftheWest said: Yes, I agree that people don't plan for everyone to die, but there should have been some of thought put into the succession. The main problem I see with thi reasoning is that the ruler can be stuck with a bad heir because there are relatives around to pick a good heir. Kind of what happened with the Boltons where Roose has no one but Ramsay, who is really unsuitable to be a lord. There was thought about the succession, but not thought made into laws and decrees. When you read 'The Sons of the Dragon' you will see that people thought about the succession of the Conqueror a lot, both when Prince Aenys was still young and sickly, and then later on when he had his first child, Princess Rhaena. Was Rhaena coming before or after her uncle Maegor? Visenya tried to resolve that issue by marrying Maegor to Rhaena but that fell through due to the objection of the High Septon. When Aenys had Aegon, Viserys, and Jaehaerys the majority of people believed that they should come before their uncle. But it was not clear in the case of the girls Rhaena and Alysanne. Some thought they should come before Maegor, too, some thought they should come after him. The issue was not resolved. 46 minutes ago, LionoftheWest said: Except that's very special circumstance and at most times the ruler has already an heir ready shortly after the first one died. Its a mark against Maekar that he went into battle personally without having a new heir named by then. Well, strictly speaking we don't yet know whether he did not name an heir or not. Yandel doesn't tell us anything about that. It seems likely that he didn't but it also possible that he did and Bloodraven didn't care about that and/or realized that there might be a civil war in any case. 46 minutes ago, LionoftheWest said: Prince Aegon was capable enough to raise an army and brave enough to fight Maegor. That's something. It is something but his campaign looks like the stupid adventure of a foolish boy. He didn't have the West, and he didn't have the Riverlands. Maegor's army even surrounded him beneath the Gods Eye. 46 minutes ago, LionoftheWest said: I agree, but even so Eddard was part of Sansa's life also when Septa Mordaine was alive. The main thing is that I maintain that if Robert had a thought to involve himself more with the children, Cersei would note, and do note that she's seen far more with her children than any septa. And Cersei would have done what she could to stop Robert to be with the children. Once more leading to a confrontation with Cersei that Robert was clueless on how to handle. Why would Cersei have objected to Robert making him his page and squire, trying to groom him to rule and lead men? That's what she would have expected of him. It isn't clear whether Cersei stepped into a vacuum left by Robert or whether she wanted to raise all her children as momma's boys. 46 minutes ago, LionoftheWest said: I blame this family three because it gav me the impression that Aerion was Maekar's firstborn and I was sloppy enough to not double check the birth order for Maekar's children. http://awoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/Maekar_I_Targaryen But with the information reactified then its should obviously be that Vaella should be the one whom Bloodraven and Aegon V rule for a regents. Ah, okay, that answers this question. 46 minutes ago, LionoftheWest said: But I do think that lackwits have claims, but they will probably be ruled by a Hand who isn't really apppointed by the lackwits themselves. See Lolly for how people in Westeros seems to treat lackwits with a claim. Lollys was never supposed to be the heir, though. Falyse was. Whether Bronn will remain the Lord of Stokeworth remains to be seen. A lackwit ruler is a bad idea for the monarchy because it will not only look weak but also allow the regents and advisers to amass enough power to effectively supplant the ruling dynasty with their own or permanently restrict the power of the monarch, establishing some sort of constitutional monarchy. 46 minutes ago, LionoftheWest said: I don't see it. And after Bloodraven dispatched with Aenys Blackfyre then there was no real focial point to rally opposition around. I don't think that it would have been a second dance, especially if Princess Vaella and Prince Maegor would be betrothed during the Great Council. Well, then why was there a Great Council in the first place? Why was there a threat for another Dance? 46 minutes ago, LionoftheWest said: Then things would probably have fallen to Robert who would be unable to do anything but bend to Cersei's wishes. Not necessarily true. And I don't share your view of Cersei as her covering up a murder committed by Joffrey (or him raping Myrcella). She is not as bad as that. 46 minutes ago, LionoftheWest said: I am sure many fools and malcontents listened to the Blackfyres but as seen in the Fourth Rebellion, they were a dying breed. If things were as bad for them then there was no good reason to actually execute Aenys. That forced Aegon V to send Bloodraven to the Wall, a move that weakened the Targaryen power. Egg could have profited from Bloodraven's counsel, after all. 46 minutes ago, LionoftheWest said: Was there a power vaccum when Daemon rebelled as well? No, but he had swords to gather behind him and so fought. A power vaccum speaks to me for a situation like the Faith Militant rather than a contested succession. Daeron II wasn't as weak a king as Robert Baratheon but had he dealt with his half-siblings more harshly while they were still young there wouldn't have been a Blackfyre Rebellion. 46 minutes ago, LionoftheWest said: Yes, he would probably be joined by some and then destroyed when his screams dies trying to siege a major city or castle.40 000 screamers can certainly causel lots of misery but they are badly equipped to take on competently led, well equipped and numerous armies such as were raised during the early time of the War of Five Kings. Hell, chances are that they would run into Stannis fleet and we don't know how many thousand screamers would die in the salt water. It is not that difficult to conquer a city. The Dothraki destroyed a lot of cities in their days. Go back and ask the kings of Sarnor if you don't believe me. And the Dothraki clearly are the strongest cavalry and the most powerful archers in the entire world. They are expert riders, they have the best bows which they can shoot while riding, and there are a lot of them. 46 minutes ago, LionoftheWest said: Not really. The Riverlands and North are all into separatism, not a Targaryen restoriation and the Vale failed to rise with the Starks and so won't rise for the Targaryens. Nope. Robb and the Riverlords were in a very bad position after the Blackwater. Robb would not make peace with Joffrey and the Lannisters, and Stannis was no longer an option for an alliance. They could not hope to stand against the West and the Reach so they would have welcomed an alliance with an outside force. They would have welcomed the opportunity to ally with Viserys, and Robb most likely would have given up his crown in exchange for his support. And the Vale might still declare for a Targaryen pretender, either Aegon or Daenerys. 46 minutes ago, LionoftheWest said: That leaves Dorne, separated from Viserys III by half a continent and with the Reach-Stormlands and those armies between them while Dorne has very little naval power that we know of. Killing the Lannisters hasn't been the goal of any factions so far in Westeros, but merely an end to reach some other goal. Robb wanted to kill the Lannisters, and the Dornish want to do that, too. They would have had their armies up in the mountains already at that time. If Viserys had landed in the Crownlands they would have crossed the Stormlands to join him. 46 minutes ago, LionoftheWest said: Could've happened but it didn't. And I don't think that a dynasty violently overthrown in recent memory would be easilly returned to power peacefully when their most visible candidate is known as "the Begger King". That's a though sell to the lords of Westeros. They also bowed down to the Mad King. And the Beggar King was the Viserys had in the Free Cities, not so much in Westeros. He was the last male scion of House Targaryen and there are still a lot of Targaryen loyalists left in the Reach and the Riverlands and the Crownlands, and possibly elsewhere. Perhaps even in the West? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lion of the West Posted February 10, 2017 Share Posted February 10, 2017 On 2017-02-03 at 4:58 PM, Lord Varys said: Well, but it is still not the way of the people to prepare for this kind of thing. Ned Stark does not expect his cousins in the Vale to inherit Winterfell because some sickness could carry away all his children. The Lannisters don't groom Stafford's children to take over the Rock, just in case, because Tytos' entire branch could be killed. I am not talking about the cousins in the Vale. I am talking that Eddard Stark has three sons and a "bastard" to that. Odds are that if Robb would die, there would be Starks around to claim Winterfell. That's kind of what I meant in having spares around, or if the ruler ha few children, to have cousins or nephews and nieces around. Quote Sure, Rhaegar could have picked another heir for some reason (assuming he had any heirs besides Aegon and Rhaenys) but we actually have textual evidence that he wanted Aegon to be king after him. Rhaegar could have picked Viserys or Danerys if he wanted, or a Baratheon for that matter. Quote There was thought about the succession, but not thought made into laws and decrees. When you read 'The Sons of the Dragon' you will see that people thought about the succession of the Conqueror a lot, both when Prince Aenys was still young and sickly, and then later on when he had his first child, Princess Rhaena. Was Rhaena coming before or after her uncle Maegor? Visenya tried to resolve that issue by marrying Maegor to Rhaena but that fell through due to the objection of the High Septon. When Aenys had Aegon, Viserys, and Jaehaerys the majority of people believed that they should come before their uncle. But it was not clear in the case of the girls Rhaena and Alysanne. Some thought they should come before Maegor, too, some thought they should come after him. The issue was not resolved. Well, untill we get more info from coming books, I'd say that the girls comes before Maegor unless the king would specify that they do not. Quote Well, strictly speaking we don't yet know whether he did not name an heir or not. Yandel doesn't tell us anything about that. It seems likely that he didn't but it also possible that he did and Bloodraven didn't care about that and/or realized that there might be a civil war in any case. The sheer foolishness of letting the king go into battle without an adult heir able to take over if things would come to worse is beyond what I expect from Bloodraven or Maekar. And even more so with the Blackfyres across the sea. Sheer foolishness. Quote It is something but his campaign looks like the stupid adventure of a foolish boy. He didn't have the West, and he didn't have the Riverlands. Maegor's army even surrounded him beneath the Gods Eye. Foolish it was, but brave and he was capable to get an army together so he was obviously not a lackwit and did want his father's throne. The combination of both should mean that if had been present on the Dragonstone, he would have claimed the crown and taken the fight to the Faith Militant. Quote Why would Cersei have objected to Robert making him his page and squire, trying to groom him to rule and lead men? That's what she would have expected of him. It isn't clear whether Cersei stepped into a vacuum left by Robert or whether she wanted to raise all her children as momma's boys. Because Cersei isn't rational and hates Robert? Its rather clear that she can not accurately determin her children's best interest and lacks most kinds of judgement, hence she is likely going to base this on her emotional repulsion against Robert and not on some rational reasoning for Joffrey's best interest. So in effect, I do think that she would want to raise them all as mommy's boys. Quote Lollys was never supposed to be the heir, though. Falyse was. Whether Bronn will remain the Lord of Stokeworth remains to be seen. I agree, but she was still used by Bronn to claim Stokeworth so some kind of claim is obvious. Quote A lackwit ruler is a bad idea for the monarchy because it will not only look weak but also allow the regents and advisers to amass enough power to effectively supplant the ruling dynasty with their own or permanently restrict the power of the monarch, establishing some sort of constitutional monarchy. The question wasn't if lackwits would make good rulers but if lackwits had claims. I think they both have claims and would make for poor rulers, at the same time. Its not like Joffrey or Aegon IV lost their claims to the throne because they were bad rulers. Quote Well, then why was there a Great Council in the first place? Why was there a threat for another Dance? I meant focal point for the Blacks within Westeros. The threat for another dance was not between the Reds and the Blacks but within House Targaryen and those are two different things. Quote Not necessarily true. And I don't share your view of Cersei as her covering up a murder committed by Joffrey (or him raping Myrcella). She is not as bad as that. I think that Cersei would cover up a murder and that if Robert did something to Myrcella then Cersei would want to solve that issue herself without Robert's interference. Quote If things were as bad for them then there was no good reason to actually execute Aenys. That forced Aegon V to send Bloodraven to the Wall, a move that weakened the Targaryen power. Egg could have profited from Bloodraven's counsel, after all. Even after Bloodraven, the Fourth Rebellion wasn't all that much to my understanding due to limited Westerosi support. But if Aegon had not punished Bloodraven, odds are that more lords would have looked kindly on the returning Blackfyres, or from what little information we have, if Bittersteel had struck at a later date when Aegon had provoced more lords, the Blackfyres would probably have gained more support. Quote Daeron II wasn't as weak a king as Robert Baratheon but had he dealt with his half-siblings more harshly while they were still young there wouldn't have been a Blackfyre Rebellion. I think its to early to say for certain. Some other mighty lord could certainly have picked up Daemon and killing your half-siblings who have done you no harm because they might be a problem, well look how that mentality of pre-emptive strikes turned out for Aerys II. Quote It is not that difficult to conquer a city. The Dothraki destroyed a lot of cities in their days. Go back and ask the kings of Sarnor if you don't believe me. While its true that the Sarnori lost their cities I believe that you are mistaken on some parts. For the first part, the Sarnori lived close to the Dothraki Sea, meaning that the nomads have an easy time to keep their massive horse hords alive as well as being being able to retreat beyond the retribution of the armies of settled peoples. In Westeros there would be no great plains for them to move and manover on. There's a reason as to why their way of fighting developed in areas with lots of open spaces, while in Westeros with less open spaces, focus on melee and armor developed. Secondly, this means that the Dothraki would reasonably not be able to summon reinforcements or be able to withdraw, because whereever they went they would find more castles and fortified places that needs to be taken by storm by the riders. As I see it the Dothraki would either have to smash Westeros at in a single strike, or else find themselves whittled away. Hell, they don't even use armor to any significant degree and both with Jorah against the Bloodrider (whose name I've forgotten) orthe "mock fight" in Meereen between Dothraki and Westerosi, the Dothraki would have a hard time sustaining a longer campaign. And that's not considering where they'll find the food for all their horses. It strikes me that this horde will more or less be regulated to the Reach, unless its as wooded as the Riverlands, or else the Dothraki will soon enough be dismounted by King Famine. Quote And the Dothraki clearly are the strongest cavalry and the most powerful archers in the entire world. They are expert riders, they have the best bows which they can shoot while riding, and there are a lot of them. I am pretty sure that the Summer Islands are the strongest archers, followed by the longbows of Westeros and then comes the Dothraki. Also while the Dothraki are certainly dangerous in their right enviroment, lots of open spaces to manover in, there won't be many plains of sufficient size in Westeros for them to play on and use their strength. But then again I haven't gone over all the books for this reply. Quote Nope. Robb and the Riverlords were in a very bad position after the Blackwater. Robb would not make peace with Joffrey and the Lannisters, and Stannis was no longer an option for an alliance. They could not hope to stand against the West and the Reach so they would have welcomed an alliance with an outside force. They would have welcomed the opportunity to ally with Viserys, and Robb most likely would have given up his crown in exchange for his support. I'd say no. Catelyn knew that Robb would not accept to put down his crown for Renly's alliance and when we see Robb after the Blackwater, he's not about to surrender but wants to keep fighting. I see no reason as to think the Northmen or Riverlords would have welcomed the son of the king who they fought about ten years ago, to get rid of the king they fight now. Quote And the Vale might still declare for a Targaryen pretender, either Aegon or Daenerys. Could be. No one knows what moves Littlefinger will make or how long he'll play the game. Hopefully Sansa will soon put and end to him. Quote Robb wanted to kill the Lannisters, and the Dornish want to do that, too. They would have had their armies up in the mountains already at that time. If Viserys had landed in the Crownlands they would have crossed the Stormlands to join him. Except that's only means to the real goal. Robb wanted to protect the Tullys and get his father released. Then he wanted independence and offered peace to the Lannisters in exchange for independence. He even had at least three Lannisters in his custody that he didn't kill when he had the chance, so killing Lannisters are obviously not the main goal here. In regards to Dorne they want to kill Lannisters, yes, but that's only part of the goal. The main goal is a Targaryen king with a Martell queen to get the "good old days" back again. If Viserys would have emulated Daemon III and landed in the Crownlands, odds are that it would have gone as well. Viserys would be isolated with Lannister and Tyrell forces either massed around King's Landing or with Tywin in Harrenhall with his army and able to come down the Kingsroad to react to this move. The Dornish meanwhile would have to fight their way through either an army sent south by the Tyrells at King's Landing OR fight their way through Renly's famed 100k army. No way that having weaker and more divided forces will triump over concentrated and stronger enemy forces with a superior position. The degree of plot armor for that to work is just out of this world. Quote They also bowed down to the Mad King. And the Beggar King was the Viserys had in the Free Cities, not so much in Westeros. He was the last male scion of House Targaryen and there are still a lot of Targaryen loyalists left in the Reach and the Riverlands and the Crownlands, and possibly elsewhere. Perhaps even in the West? And for ten years they bent to Robert. When Greyjoy rebelled, they loyally answered Robert's call. At the point of time you are mentioning, I see little reason to think the Targaryens would successful. Granted there probably were Houses that would have liked to fight for Rhaegar across the realm and including Westeros. My pet theory is that Tywin's army at the Sack were the lords who he felt fully confident would pick Lannister above both Stag and Dragon. Those of strong sympathies to either rebel or loyalist were left at home since Tywin couldn't know which side he would join untill after the battle was over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Varys Posted February 10, 2017 Share Posted February 10, 2017 24 minutes ago, LionoftheWest said: I am not talking about the cousins in the Vale. I am talking that Eddard Stark has three sons and a "bastard" to that. Odds are that if Robb would die, there would be Starks around to claim Winterfell. That's kind of what I meant in having spares around, or if the ruler ha few children, to have cousins or nephews and nieces around. That makes no sense. Ned's children are all at Winterfell. If Winterfell is hit by a plague all of them could die. That is why you need spares. Heirs could also die in war or by accident but sickness would be cause of death #1. 24 minutes ago, LionoftheWest said: Well, untill we get more info from coming books, I'd say that the girls comes before Maegor unless the king would specify that they do not. Then you know more about the succession than the people of the Seven Kingdoms do. They didn't know. You somehow do. How can you know stuff like that? Your personal preference is irrelevant. 24 minutes ago, LionoftheWest said: The sheer foolishness of letting the king go into battle without an adult heir able to take over if things would come to worse is beyond what I expect from Bloodraven or Maekar. And even more so with the Blackfyres across the sea. Sheer foolishness. A proper king leads his troops into battle. And we have no idea about the setting there, why it was necessary that Maekar had to lead that battle personally. Egg was there, too, after all, suggesting that the situation was pretty dire. It ended with a siege and a victory but the Targaryens apparently even had to raise a host in the West or else the Reynes wouldn't have been there. 24 minutes ago, LionoftheWest said: Foolish it was, but brave and he was capable to get an army together so he was obviously not a lackwit and did want his father's throne. The combination of both should mean that if had been present on the Dragonstone, he would have claimed the crown and taken the fight to the Faith Militant. Or not. We are not talking a lackwit. But a madman of the Aerys II type. Such a man could easily enough have thought he was a great guy when he was, in fact, a laughingstock. That could also explain why only fools supported his claims. The Lannisters were to cowardly to show their colors and the Tullys stood with Maegor. 24 minutes ago, LionoftheWest said: Because Cersei isn't rational and hates Robert? Its rather clear that she can not accurately determin her children's best interest and lacks most kinds of judgement, hence she is likely going to base this on her emotional repulsion against Robert and not on some rational reasoning for Joffrey's best interest. So in effect, I do think that she would want to raise them all as mommy's boys. It is quite clear that she did not want that for Joffrey. 24 minutes ago, LionoftheWest said: I agree, but she was still used by Bronn to claim Stokeworth so some kind of claim is obvious. Sure, but that doesn't mean a lackwit is a preferred option for a king or lord. Bronn supports Lollys' and his own claim with sellswords. There might be other Stokeworths around who topple this regime eventually. Or Aegon attaints the entire lot and gives the lands and title to some Golden Company officer. Easy enough if there are no other Stokeworths around. 24 minutes ago, LionoftheWest said: The question wasn't if lackwits would make good rulers but if lackwits had claims. I think they both have claims and would make for poor rulers, at the same time. Its not like Joffrey or Aegon IV lost their claims to the throne because they were bad rulers. But the idea that people consider kings who essentially are unable to rule in their own right good kings makes no sense. In a monarchy back in the old days such people could never become kings (because nobody would follow such people) and later on when there was a concept of mental illness then it is pretty easy to imagine that people and governments don't want to follow a madman. Both Vaella and Maegor were rejected because they were considered to be unfit to rule (Vaella because she was a lackwit and Maegor because his father was a madman). 24 minutes ago, LionoftheWest said: I meant focal point for the Blacks within Westeros. The threat for another dance was not between the Reds and the Blacks but within House Targaryen and those are two different things. Not necessarily. The Blackfyres could have profited from the strife within House Targaryen. That's what Aenys Blackfyre tried to do. 24 minutes ago, LionoftheWest said: I think that Cersei would cover up a murder and that if Robert did something to Myrcella then Cersei would want to solve that issue herself without Robert's interference. Again, we are talking about a scenario where Robert learned of whatever happened. 24 minutes ago, LionoftheWest said: Even after Bloodraven, the Fourth Rebellion wasn't all that much to my understanding due to limited Westerosi support. But if Aegon had not punished Bloodraven, odds are that more lords would have looked kindly on the returning Blackfyres, or from what little information we have, if Bittersteel had struck at a later date when Aegon had provoced more lords, the Blackfyres would probably have gained more support. If the Golden Company also numbered 10,000 men (or even more) then it was certainly a danger all by itself. Not strong enough to permanently conquer the Iron Throne without Westerosi support but certainly strong enough to cause a lot damage in the Stormlands (or even in the Crownlands, if he had landed there). 24 minutes ago, LionoftheWest said: I think its to early to say for certain. Some other mighty lord could certainly have picked up Daemon and killing your half-siblings who have done you no harm because they might be a problem, well look how that mentality of pre-emptive strikes turned out for Aerys II. Poison is a subtle weapon. And Daeron II could easily enough have exiled them or sent them to the Wall (or handed them to the Faith or the Citadel). Daemon Blackfyre married the daughter of the Archon of Tyrosh. Why not sent him to Tyrosh as a royal envoy, permanently. 24 minutes ago, LionoftheWest said: While its true that the Sarnori lost their cities I believe that you are mistaken on some parts. For the first part, the Sarnori lived close to the Dothraki Sea, meaning that the nomads have an easy time to keep their massive horse hords alive as well as being being able to retreat beyond the retribution of the armies of settled peoples. In Westeros there would be no great plains for them to move and manover on. There's a reason as to why their way of fighting developed in areas with lots of open spaces, while in Westeros with less open spaces, focus on melee and armor developed. There is not that much forest in the south of Westeros. And neither are there many mountains. There is no reason the Dothraki could not seize all the assets of the peasants, and use them as their slaves, living off the goods they take from them. 24 minutes ago, LionoftheWest said: Secondly, this means that the Dothraki would reasonably not be able to summon reinforcements or be able to withdraw, because whereever they went they would find more castles and fortified places that needs to be taken by storm by the riders. As I see it the Dothraki would either have to smash Westeros at in a single strike, or else find themselves whittled away. Hell, they don't even use armor to any significant degree and both with Jorah against the Bloodrider (whose name I've forgotten) orthe "mock fight" in Meereen between Dothraki and Westerosi, the Dothraki would have a hard time sustaining a longer campaign. And that's not considering where they'll find the food for all their horses. It strikes me that this horde will more or less be regulated to the Reach, unless its as wooded as the Riverlands, or else the Dothraki will soon enough be dismounted by King Famine. Their success would depend on a successful landing. Once they get all their people across the sea everything should work just fine. The Dothraki know how to exploit and enslave people. 24 minutes ago, LionoftheWest said: I am pretty sure that the Summer Islands are the strongest archers, followed by the longbows of Westeros and then comes the Dothraki. Also while the Dothraki are certainly dangerous in their right enviroment, lots of open spaces to manover in, there won't be many plains of sufficient size in Westeros for them to play on and use their strength. But then again I haven't gone over all the books for this reply. Are you kidding me? The Dothraki use dragonbone bows, the strongest bows there are in Martinworld. They can use their arrows while riding which could be used to devastating effect both against cavalry and infantry. They could actually be what the English archers did to the French knights. While also having the advantages of the Mongols. The Dothraki also don't have to take everything by storm. They did not do that kind of thing when they crushed the Sarnori. They can besiege cities if they have to (or want to). And if they invaded Westeros they most likely would conquer that land. 24 minutes ago, LionoftheWest said: I'd say no. Catelyn knew that Robb would not accept to put down his crown for Renly's alliance and when we see Robb after the Blackwater, he's not about to surrender but wants to keep fighting. I see no reason as to think the Northmen or Riverlords would have welcomed the son of the king who they fought about ten years ago, to get rid of the king they fight now. Reread ASoS. Robb is unwilling to make a peace with King Joffrey, which is what triggers the Red Wedding on Roose Bolton's side. But Robb intended to make a peace with Stannis. For that to happen he would have been forced to give up his crown. So that was negotiable. Just not with a King Joffrey. 24 minutes ago, LionoftheWest said: Except that's only means to the real goal. Robb wanted to protect the Tullys and get his father released. Then he wanted independence and offered peace to the Lannisters in exchange for independence. He even had at least three Lannisters in his custody that he didn't kill when he had the chance, so killing Lannisters are obviously not the main goal here. Killing Lannisters means killing those who are relevant and guilty (Joffrey, Tywin, Jaime) not innocent children. 24 minutes ago, LionoftheWest said: In regards to Dorne they want to kill Lannisters, yes, but that's only part of the goal. The main goal is a Targaryen king with a Martell queen to get the "good old days" back again. If Viserys would have emulated Daemon III and landed in the Crownlands, odds are that it would have gone as well. Viserys would be isolated with Lannister and Tyrell forces either massed around King's Landing or with Tywin in Harrenhall with his army and able to come down the Kingsroad to react to this move. The Dornish meanwhile would have to fight their way through either an army sent south by the Tyrells at King's Landing OR fight their way through Renly's famed 100k army. No way that having weaker and more divided forces will triump over concentrated and stronger enemy forces with a superior position. The degree of plot armor for that to work is just out of this world. The Dothraki would have crushed Tywin and the Tyrells easily enough. Drogo knew how to fight. And 40,000 men in his khalasar were mounted warriors. How many armored knights would have stood against these? 10,000? 24 minutes ago, LionoftheWest said: And for ten years they bent to Robert. When Greyjoy rebelled, they loyally answered Robert's call. At the point of time you are mentioning, I see little reason to think the Targaryens would successful. Granted there probably were Houses that would have liked to fight for Rhaegar across the realm and including Westeros. Robert's friends rallied to his side. There were no Targaryen loyalists fighting against Balon I'm aware of. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Grey Wolf Posted February 10, 2017 Share Posted February 10, 2017 5 hours ago, Lord Varys said: Text On Dothraki: I really think you're overselling them. Their bows are, per JonCon's POV and TWOIAF, inferior to those of Westeros and the Summer Islands. Furthermore, their arakhs would have trouble getting through chainmail, let alone plate, if they can at all, per Jorah's duel with Cotho in AGOT and they don't wear any armor themselves, making them pin cushions for archers and spearmen. Beyond that they have no experience with siege warfare and the only areas suitable for steppe combat are the Reach and the Crownlands not to mention they don't know the layout of the land at all nor do they have anywhere to fall back to unlike out on the Dothraki Sea in Essos. On no Targaryen loyalists fighting for Robert during the Greyjoy Rebellion: Ships from the Arbor fought alongside Stannis at Fair Isle. Also, the royal fleet was probably composed primarily of Crownlanders. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lion of the West Posted February 11, 2017 Share Posted February 11, 2017 17 hours ago, Lord Varys said: That makes no sense. Ned's children are all at Winterfell. If Winterfell is hit by a plague all of them could die. That is why you need spares. Heirs could also die in war or by accident but sickness would be cause of death #1. It makes perfect sense. When sickness strikes it seldom wipes the entire location clear and five children have a better chance of leaving survivors than one or two children would have. Quote Then you know more about the succession than the people of the Seven Kingdoms do. They didn't know. You somehow do. How can you know stuff like that? Your personal preference is irrelevant. I base it on the many reasons for succession I have brought up in earlier threads regarding the Dance of the Dragons. Quote A proper king leads his troops into battle. And we have no idea about the setting there, why it was necessary that Maekar had to lead that battle personally. Egg was there, too, after all, suggesting that the situation was pretty dire. It ended with a siege and a victory but the Targaryens apparently even had to raise a host in the West or else the Reynes wouldn't have been there. No. A proper king rules well, a king does not need to go into battle hinself but can delegate the task to family members, bannermen or the Kingsguard if so needed. Now, the warrior is the masculine ideal in Westeros so obviously many kings will be warriors, but that don't mean they must lead men in war. Daeron II for example worked perfectly well as a king without leading any troops into battle. Quote Or not. We are not talking a lackwit. But a madman of the Aerys II type. Such a man could easily enough have thought he was a great guy when he was, in fact, a laughingstock. That could also explain why only fools supported his claims. The Lannisters were to cowardly to show their colors and the Tullys stood with Maegor. We have no idea about the strength of Prince Aegon's support, or who supported him. We do however know that Maegor had to personally confront him and that may say something about the army he raised, or not. Quote It is quite clear that she did not want that for Joffrey. Not as in someone ruled by his mother, but certainly in someone who is more a member of his mother's family than his father's. Quote Sure, but that doesn't mean a lackwit is a preferred option for a king or lord. Bronn supports Lollys' and his own claim with sellswords. There might be other Stokeworths around who topple this regime eventually. Or Aegon attaints the entire lot and gives the lands and title to some Golden Company officer. Easy enough if there are no other Stokeworths around. The issue is if a lackwit has as a claim, not if it a lackwit would make for a good ruler. Quote But the idea that people consider kings who essentially are unable to rule in their own right good kings makes no sense. In a monarchy back in the old days such people could never become kings (because nobody would follow such people) and later on when there was a concept of mental illness then it is pretty easy to imagine that people and governments don't want to follow a madman. Both Vaella and Maegor were rejected because they were considered to be unfit to rule (Vaella because she was a lackwit and Maegor because his father was a madman). I am sure all is correct, but this is about the claim and not the quality of the rule. Quote Not necessarily. The Blackfyres could have profited from the strife within House Targaryen. That's what Aenys Blackfyre tried to do. Indeed they would have, but we also see where Aenys' attempt lead him. Quote Again, we are talking about a scenario where Robert learned of whatever happened. I would imagine Robert would have killed Cersei, Jamie and the kids and then Tywin would be waiting for a chance to vengeance. Quote If the Golden Company also numbered 10,000 men (or even more) then it was certainly a danger all by itself. Not strong enough to permanently conquer the Iron Throne without Westerosi support but certainly strong enough to cause a lot damage in the Stormlands (or even in the Crownlands, if he had landed there). True indeed. Lots of petty lords might suffer as would the smallfolk, before the Golden Company would be driven into the sea. Quote Poison is a subtle weapon. And Daeron II could easily enough have exiled them or sent them to the Wall (or handed them to the Faith or the Citadel). Daemon Blackfyre married the daughter of the Archon of Tyrosh. Why not sent him to Tyrosh as a royal envoy, permanently. If several people just bends over dead, there will be many fingers at Daeron and exiling someone to the Wall is something that is done to criminals, not on a whim and which people who are not criminals can refuse. Furthermore its perfectly within Daemon's and Aegor's possibility to refuse the king and not been seen as traitors by the majority of the population. Besides if Daeron did the things you suggested, he wouldn't be "Daeron the Good". So it would be so out of character for him that we're talking about a different character. Quote There is not that much forest in the south of Westeros. And neither are there many mountains. There is no reason the Dothraki could not seize all the assets of the peasants, and use them as their slaves, living off the goods they take from them. Dunk and Egg's time in the Reach mentions at least one forest, and the Stormlands would seem to be little but forests. Also Westeros is a pretty militarized land with many castles and holdfasts where people can take cover. Now of course the Dothraki can attempt to storm these various places, starving them out is obvious not possible if you're after the food supplies, but it will be a constant attrition on their numbers, and in effect they would be regulated to the Reach. Now the Reach can certainly suffice for a long time, but being so restricted in movement means that bottlenecks can more easily be set up and remember, its the Dothraki who wants to take stuff, so they would be on the offensive. Quote Their success would depend on a successful landing. Once they get all their people across the sea everything should work just fine. The Dothraki know how to exploit and enslave people. With a royal navy together with the same kind of storms and stuff that gav both the Golden Company and the Iron Fleet issues when crossingt he Narrow Sea, I don't see all the Dothraki getting across. Many will lost at sea. To this I don't think that the Dothraki are nearly as competent to expoloit slave labor as they would need to be. They are good at taking slaves no doubt, but then its the Free Cities and in particular the Ghiscari who are turning the slaves into whatever end result is intended for them. As such I am not sure how skilled the Dothraki are as task masters when the actual work for the slaves begin. Quote Are you kidding me? The Dothraki use dragonbone bows, the strongest bows there are in Martinworld. They can use their arrows while riding which could be used to devastating effect both against cavalry and infantry. They could actually be what the English archers did to the French knights. While also having the advantages of the Mongols. See the reply above. Odds are that you are wrong on this. Quote The Dothraki also don't have to take everything by storm. They did not do that kind of thing when they crushed the Sarnori. They can besiege cities if they have to (or want to). And if they invaded Westeros they most likely would conquer that land. Four khaals were needed to conquer the Sarnori, as well as a plains for them to manover on and it didn't come in a single blow, but apparenty still took some time.We are talking about Khal Drogo's host, which I don't think would be able to conquer Westeros by the reasons mentioned. These guys are not the Mongols, and Westeros does not lack for people of military competence who would be opposed to this invasion. Quote Reread ASoS. Robb is unwilling to make a peace with King Joffrey, which is what triggers the Red Wedding on Roose Bolton's side. But Robb intended to make a peace with Stannis. For that to happen he would have been forced to give up his crown. So that was negotiable. Just not with a King Joffrey. I'll make a note of it. Quote Killing Lannisters means killing those who are relevant and guilty (Joffrey, Tywin, Jaime) not innocent children. Hilarious then that Robb keeps Jamie, one of the Lannisters you mentioned, without killing him if the purpose is to kill the Lannisters. Quote The Dothraki would have crushed Tywin and the Tyrells easily enough. Drogo knew how to fight. And 40,000 men in his khalasar were mounted warriors. How many armored knights would have stood against these? 10,000? Tywin and Tarly also know how to fght, and with superior numbers and superior position, odds are that the Dothraki will not fare particular well against men using armor as a standard issue. Not to mention that while the Dothraki must attack, its entirely possible for the king's men to retreat inside of King's Landing and let the Dothraki pile their dead under the walls. 10 000 heavy cavalry is a lot, and Westeros does use different arms in support of each other as opposed to the Dothraki light cavalry. You are clearly overselling the Dothraki as some kind of supermen when they are not. Quote Robert's friends rallied to his side. There were no Targaryen loyalists fighting against Balon I'm aware of. Then your awareness leaves something to be desired. The Reach was for the Targaryens as was the Crownlands, but it was fleets from the Reach and Crownlands (royal fleet) that defeated the Iron Fleet for Robert. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Varys Posted February 11, 2017 Share Posted February 11, 2017 17 hours ago, The Grey Wolf said: On Dothraki: I really think you're overselling them. Their bows are, per JonCon's POV and TWOIAF, inferior to those of Westeros and the Summer Islands. I think you are misremembering stuff here: http://awoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/Dragonbone This has first been established in AGoT, if I correctly recall. Didn't Tyrion first read about dragonbone and its properties back in AGoT when he talked to Jon? 17 hours ago, The Grey Wolf said: Furthermore, their arakhs would have trouble getting through chainmail, let alone plate, if they can at all, per Jorah's duel with Cotho in AGOT and they don't wear any armor themselves, making them pin cushions for archers and spearmen. Beyond that they have no experience with siege warfare and the only areas suitable for steppe combat are the Reach and the Crownlands not to mention they don't know the layout of the land at all nor do they have anywhere to fall back to unlike out on the Dothraki Sea in Essos. They are not likely to face all that many mounted enemies, though. Not in comparison to their own men who are all sitting on horses. They should be able to ride down most of the enemy, assuming that is even necessary. Again, they can shoot arrows while riding and the superiority of the dragonbone bows would actually enable them to effectively defeat the enemy (or at least greatly thin the enemy's lines) before they even engage in direct combat. They have experience with siege warfare. They just don't like to do that all that much. But they can, if they want to/have to. Else they would have never conquered and utterly destroyed the Sarnori. I never said the Dothraki have to (or would) conquer all of Westeros. They don't need to. The hypothetical scenario is them seating Viserys III on the Iron Throne. They certainly could have done that. And we will see the Dothraki fight in Westeros, eventually. I'm pretty sure they will surprise us with their skills at warfare. There won't be many mounted knights left to oppose them when they finally arrive. I actually think this downplaying of the Dothraki as a powerful force (done mainly by the 'great military strategist and ultimate expert in warfare' Jorah Mormont) is not going to play out as the people of Westeros would like it to turn out. 17 hours ago, The Grey Wolf said: On no Targaryen loyalists fighting for Robert during the Greyjoy Rebellion: Ships from the Arbor fought alongside Stannis at Fair Isle. Also, the royal fleet was probably composed primarily of Crownlanders. Yeah, there were some in the navy. But as far as we know there were no other Reach lords, no Dornishmen, and no Targaryen loyalist Riverlords on the Iron Islands. 7 hours ago, LionoftheWest said: It makes perfect sense. When sickness strikes it seldom wipes the entire location clear and five children have a better chance of leaving survivors than one or two children would have. You are not making sense. Any infectious disease is likely to spread. All of Ned's children could still be carried away by measles, influenza, smallpox, and so on. The number of your children is no guarantee that any of them will live through a plague. 7 hours ago, LionoftheWest said: I base it on the many reasons for succession I have brought up in earlier threads regarding the Dance of the Dragons. The Dance has nothing to do with that. The majority of the Andal and First Men lords of Westeros does not thing a daughter comes before an uncle. There was one Queen Regnant in Westeros, a Gardener Queen from the Reach about whom we know nothing besides that. We don't even know whether she was the daughter of a king - she could have been the niece or cousin of a king who died childless and had no male relations alive whatsoever. Your idea that the granddaughter of a king should take precedence over a younger son is simply not supported by the text. If this was what law and tradition demanded then all the Andal kingdoms would have had many Queens Regnant, and both Great Councils would have supported the claims of Rhaenys-Laenor and Vaella, not the claims of the males through the male line. 7 hours ago, LionoftheWest said: No. A proper king rules well, a king does not need to go into battle hinself but can delegate the task to family members, bannermen or the Kingsguard if so needed. Now, the warrior is the masculine ideal in Westeros so obviously many kings will be warriors, but that don't mean they must lead men in war. Daeron II for example worked perfectly well as a king without leading any troops into battle. A king in a medieval setting is expected to lead his men in battle. He does not have to lead from the front, he can remain at the read, but he should be present, if only as a figurehead/puppet to give some rousing speeches. That was expected even of female monarchs who were too weak mentally and physically (in the mind of the people at the time) to fight. We see how devastating the effect on the morale was when the coward Joffrey abandoned his men on the city walls and run back to hide behind his mother's skirts. 7 hours ago, LionoftheWest said: We have no idea about the strength of Prince Aegon's support, or who supported him. We do however know that Maegor had to personally confront him and that may say something about the army he raised, or not. We know the boy let himself to be surrounded by Maegor's forces. If you can surround an army it is usually rather small. And if the man thought Quicksilver could defeat Balerion he was an utter fool. It may be that the boy challenged his uncle to a single combat on dragonback or some other foolish notion like Daemon II Blackfyre tried to do with Bloodraven. Maegor would have accepted such a challenge, of course, but it actually might be that his original plan was to not kill the boy but to take him into custody as he had already done with his mother and siblings. 7 hours ago, LionoftheWest said: The issue is if a lackwit has as a claim, not if it a lackwit would make for a good ruler. Well, Vaella's claim was dismissed, so that sets a precedent for a lackwit being unfit to rule. Royals suffering from similar afflictions might have been seen as barred from the succession thereafter. It would not be implicit but if a king had an eldest son who was a lackwit he could easily enough cite the Great Council as a precedent as to why pass him over. And had Rhaegar had success in deposing Aerys II because of his madness that could have set a precedent for the Small Council/royal family being allowed to depose a king on the grounds of him being mad and thus incapable to rule. 7 hours ago, LionoftheWest said: True indeed. Lots of petty lords might suffer as would the smallfolk, before the Golden Company would be driven into the sea. Perhaps even not that. You can conquer quite some lands with 10,000 or more professional soldiers. It would depend on the Westerosi to take it back. Perhaps they would have never gotten around to do that. Unlikely with a king like Aegon V, of course, but certainly not impossible. 7 hours ago, LionoftheWest said: If several people just bends over dead, there will be many fingers at Daeron and exiling someone to the Wall is something that is done to criminals, not on a whim and which people who are not criminals can refuse. Furthermore its perfectly within Daemon's and Aegor's possibility to refuse the king and not been seen as traitors by the majority of the population. Besides if Daeron did the things you suggested, he wouldn't be "Daeron the Good". So it would be so out of character for him that we're talking about a different character. Brynden and Aegor are just children and bastards at that. The idea that these were famous all across Westeros is ridiculous. As is the idea that the world would care about their fates. Daemon might have had some prominence at that point, but even promising young people can die of a sudden illness or suffer mortal accidents. 7 hours ago, LionoftheWest said: Dunk and Egg's time in the Reach mentions at least one forest, and the Stormlands would seem to be little but forests. Also Westeros is a pretty militarized land with many castles and holdfasts where people can take cover. Now of course the Dothraki can attempt to storm these various places, starving them out is obvious not possible if you're after the food supplies, but it will be a constant attrition on their numbers, and in effect they would be regulated to the Reach. Now the Reach can certainly suffice for a long time, but being so restricted in movement means that bottlenecks can more easily be set up and remember, its the Dothraki who wants to take stuff, so they would be on the offensive. The food will actually be outside those castles, not inside them. At least in spring and summer. In winter things are different, of course, but we are not talking about winter warfare here. And many of those smaller castles should be stormed rather quickly. And the cities should fall even quicker. And there is no reason why the Dothraki should wage war in some backwater regions like the Kingswood or the Rainwood 7 hours ago, LionoftheWest said: With a royal navy together with the same kind of storms and stuff that gav both the Golden Company and the Iron Fleet issues when crossingt he Narrow Sea, I don't see all the Dothraki getting across. Many will lost at sea. To this I don't think that the Dothraki are nearly as competent to expoloit slave labor as they would need to be. They are good at taking slaves no doubt, but then its the Free Cities and in particular the Ghiscari who are turning the slaves into whatever end result is intended for them. As such I am not sure how skilled the Dothraki are as task masters when the actual work for the slaves begin. The royal fleet sits in the harbor of Dragonstone, with Stannis Baratheon basically doing nothing. Viserys III would have known that from Illyrio, so they could actually have attacked Dragonstone first, taking Stannis by surprise. The man was focused on KL, not accepting to be taken from behind. Or they could have ignored him completely. If Stannis hadn't seem them coming they would have been in Westeros before he could have done anything to stop them. But again, we are not talking about a naval battle here. We are talking about the Dothraki fighting on Westerosi soil. 7 hours ago, LionoftheWest said: Four khaals were needed to conquer the Sarnori, as well as a plains for them to manover on and it didn't come in a single blow, but apparenty still took some time.We are talking about Khal Drogo's host, which I don't think would be able to conquer Westeros by the reasons mentioned. These guys are not the Mongols, and Westeros does not lack for people of military competence who would be opposed to this invasion. The Sarnori also technically had the advantage over the Dothraki until they hadn't. They were foolish. Who is to say that the Westerosi are not also foolish? And unlike the Sarnori with their chariots the Westerosi have no clue how to fight the Dothraki effectively. 7 hours ago, LionoftheWest said: Hilarious then that Robb keeps Jamie, one of the Lannisters you mentioned, without killing him if the purpose is to kill the Lannisters. Do you doubt that Robb would have added Jaime to Tywin's and Joffrey's head on a spike after he no longer needed him alive? 7 hours ago, LionoftheWest said: Tywin and Tarly also know how to fght, and with superior numbers and superior position, odds are that the Dothraki will not fare particular well against men using armor as a standard issue. Not to mention that while the Dothraki must attack, its entirely possible for the king's men to retreat inside of King's Landing and let the Dothraki pile their dead under the walls. The Dothraki would just storm the city. 7 hours ago, LionoftheWest said: 10 000 heavy cavalry is a lot, and Westeros does use different arms in support of each other as opposed to the Dothraki light cavalry. You are clearly overselling the Dothraki as some kind of supermen when they are not. The Tyrells and Lannisters combined, of course. But nobody has said that they would face them in pitched battle with their forces combined.  Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Grey Wolf Posted February 11, 2017 Share Posted February 11, 2017 5 hours ago, Lord Varys said: Text On Dothraki: We'll see but honestly I can't take seriously a military force that doesn't wear any sort of armor in a pre-gunpowder age. GRRM really jumped the shark with that. Same with First Night actually being real in Westeros. As for dragonbone I don't recall the Dothraki using them in great numbers. After all the material can't be all that common or else everyone would use it. On Aegon, son of Aenys: An army doesn't need to be small to be surrounded. The Romans outnumbered Hannibal at Cannae after all. However, I doubt that Aegon had much support. His attempt at the throne was in 44 AC, which seems to have been the highpoint of Maegor's reign prior to Visenya's death sometime that year. On loyalists in the Greyjoy Rebellion: We don't exactly have a list of the houses that fought in the war so you can't say that for certain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Varys Posted February 11, 2017 Share Posted February 11, 2017 17 hours ago, The Grey Wolf said: On Dothraki: We'll see but honestly I can't take seriously a military force that doesn't wear any sort of armor in a pre-gunpowder age. Did the Mongols have strong armor? I don't know much about them. Or the Roman legions? You can be pretty effective without the whole armor thing. And there are not all that many armored knights in Westeros. Quote GRRM really jumped the shark with that. Same with First Night actually being real in Westeros. As for dragonbone I don't recall the Dothraki using them in great numbers. After all the material can't be all that common or else everyone would use it. It is common enough among the Dothraki to be known as them using such. Dragonbone should be much more common in Essos, just as Valyrian steel is. The Freehold of Valyria was in Essos, not in Westeros. And the majority of dragonbone should also still be in Essos. The whole thing about dragonbone bows having those special properties (greatest range in comparison to common long bows and goldenheart bows) is introduced very early on in the series and is likely to have some repercussions. If the penetrating power is strong enough such arrows could go through plate like butter. And then the knights are dead men walking, just as the French were when they charged against the English bowmen. Quote On Aegon, son of Aenys: An army doesn't need to be small to be surrounded. The Romans outnumbered Hannibal at Cannae after all. However, I doubt that Aegon had much support. His attempt at the throne was in 44 AC, which seems to have been the highpoint of Maegor's reign prior to Visenya's death sometime that year. It was actually 43 AC, one year after the death of Aenys I and Visenya was still alive. That aside, Prince Aegon apparently had no great house on his side. The Tullys were against him, and the Lannisters were not with him. Some Westermen and minor Riverlords may have marched with him, but that would have been a small host in comparison to the forces Maegor most likely mustered (Crownlanders, Riverlanders, possibly some Stormlanders). But we'll get the details on that whole thing later this year. Hopefully without any cuts. Quote On loyalists in the Greyjoy Rebellion: We don't exactly have a list of the houses that fought in the war so you can't say that for certain. True, we don't have many details but we don't have any reason to believe as of yet that Reach Lords (Redwynes excluded) or even Westermen were there. We only know about the Northmen and the Stormlanders. The Riverlords (Mallister) were involved in the original fighting, as were the Westermen, but this doesn't mean they played a role during the later invasion. I'd not be surprised if some Riverlords and Westermen fought with Robert but I'd be very surprised if any Reach Lord or Dornishmen bestirred themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Grey Wolf Posted February 11, 2017 Share Posted February 11, 2017 1 hour ago, Lord Varys said: Text On Dothraki: The Mongols still wore at least some amount of armor and the Roman legions were heavy infantry. Seriously, no culture in RL so far as I know ever disdained the use of armor and for good reason. Without it the Dothraki are pin cushions for spears and arrows in battle, siege, or ambush. As for dragonbone it can't be common enough that a large number of them would be armed with it considering the source material. On Aegon, son of Aenys: My bad for getting the year wrong. Anyway, the Lannisters did not support Aegon at all (unless what you wrote was a typo, which I think it is). In fact, the only house we know currently that did was House Tarbeck if I'm not mistaken but as you pointed out we'll hopefully get the full story when Book of Swords comes out later this year. On the Greyjoy Rebellion: Actually, we know per TWOIAF that Tywin took part in the Greyjoy Rebellion so the Westerlands were involved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Varys Posted February 12, 2017 Share Posted February 12, 2017 11 hours ago, The Grey Wolf said: On Dothraki: The Mongols still wore at least some amount of armor and the Roman legions were heavy infantry. Seriously, no culture in RL so far as I know ever disdained the use of armor and for good reason. Without it the Dothraki are pin cushions for spears and arrows in battle, siege, or ambush. As for dragonbone it can't be common enough that a large number of them would be armed with it considering the source material. We have to wait and see, but since the Dothraki are the most powerful martial culture in Essos west of the Bones (they are occasionally even testing the defenses of the Volantenes and it is quite clear that the Pentoshi, Ghiscari, and Lhazareen are completely at their mercy) their tactics and abilities must be very effective, armor or not. The idea would be that their numerical advantage as well as the superiority of their bows as well as their expert horsemanship puts them into the advantage. One assumes that an army consisting of most/all of the Andal knights of Westeros should be able to crush a Dothraki army of larger size but a Westerosi army consisting mainly of infantry might be doomed. Perhaps the mere reputation of the Dothraki - just as well as the reputation of the Mongols and Huns - would see to their victory because most of rank-and-file men making up the infantry would break easily enough. I don't know whether dragonbone is all that scarce. Dragons were scarce in Westeros but not in Essos. Valyria thrived for thousands of years and they may have bred tens of thousands of dragons in all those years. That should be material enough for millions of bows made of dragonbone. 11 hours ago, The Grey Wolf said: On the Greyjoy Rebellion: Actually, we know per TWOIAF that Tywin took part in the Greyjoy Rebellion so the Westerlands were involved. I don't recall right now, did Westermen also fight on the Iron Islands or did Tywin's fleet just get burned down? The latter wouldn't necessarily mean that the Lannisters participated in Robert's campaign. But then, they would be not exactly Targaryen loyalists but Robert's close allies to the same (or even a stronger) degree than the Starks (due to Robert's marriage to Cersei). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Grey Wolf Posted February 12, 2017 Share Posted February 12, 2017 6 hours ago, Lord Varys said: Text On Dothraki: The Pentoshi and the Lhazareen don't have any armies. As for the Ghiscari their tactics and war material are heavily outdated. Also, I think you're really underselling the Westerosi infantry. As we see in ASOIAF they are far from undisciplined rabble. On the Greyjoy Rebellion: Both happened. Its in the Iron Islands section of TWOIAF. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Varys Posted February 12, 2017 Share Posted February 12, 2017 2 hours ago, The Grey Wolf said: On Dothraki: The Pentoshi and the Lhazareen don't have any armies. As for the Ghiscari their tactics and war material are heavily outdated. Also, I think you're really underselling the Westerosi infantry. As we see in ASOIAF they are far from undisciplined rabble. The Pentoshi have no army, true, but they have some city watch and some city walls. The Lhazareen could have some fighting forces, we never have seen the core of those lands. Dany makes a pact with them suggesting that these people have some leaders and exist as a political entity. I mean the rank-and-file pike men the lords draft into their service, not some professional men-at-arms or sworn swords, nor the freeriders and knights. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.